4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and by profession is a construction worker. On 3 April 2007 he was granted conditional early release from prison. The applicant lives in Telšiai.
5.  On 26 April 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He alleges that during his arrest he was beaten up by the police and that, despite his requests for a doctor to be called, no medical assistance was provided. The applicant states that he was then questioned by the police despite his poor state of health. No lawyer was present at the questioning. The applicant did not confess.
6.  Between 27 April and 8 May 2001 the applicant was in custody at the Telšiai Remand Prison (Telšių rajono policijos komisariato areštinė). After being released on an undertaking to stay at his place of residence, the applicant fled to the Russian Federation. After being caught, the applicant was returned to Lithuania and detained there between 1 March 2002 and 26 April 2002. Afterwards the applicant was held under house arrest.
In a ruling of 1 March 2002, the Telšiai District Court noted that, given that the applicant had previously fled from investigators, it was reasonable to remand him in custody. The court confirmed that conclusion on 18 April 2002.
7.  On 29 July 2002 the applicant was detained again on suspicion of murder (see paragraphs 20-28 below). The detention was upheld by court orders, the last one being that of 18 April 2003 by the Court of Appeal.
8.  On 14 January 2003 the Telšiai District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to three years and six months’ deprivation of liberty with confiscation of property in the sum of 1,000 Lithuanian litas (LTL).
9.  On 6 March 2003 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the judgment, inter alia for want of substantiation, since the evidence against the applicant was contradictory and the trial court had nevertheless based the conviction on it. The appellate court also noted that the trial court had breached the applicant’s defence rights, given that it had failed to guarantee that a lawyer would be present throughout the trial. In particular, the applicant’s counsel was absent from the last hearing, when the applicant made his final statement. The case was returned for a fresh trial. The applicant was present at the hearing. He was represented by a lawyer, S.K.
10.  On 11 June 2003 the Telšiai District Court again convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to three years of deprivation of liberty, without confiscation of property. The conviction was based on the material evidence and the submissions of the victim and five witnesses, three of whom were questioned in open court. The court noted that two other witnesses, V.P. and A.M., had been summoned, but their addresses were unknown. Their submissions were read out, having been recorded during the pre-trial investigation. The applicant was present at the hearing and was assisted by a defence counsel, M.M.
11.  On 21 August 2003 the Šiauliai Regional Court upheld the above judgment. The applicant was present at the hearing and was represented by defence counsel S.K. The transcript of the hearing indicates that the applicant did not object to being represented by S.K. Both the applicant and his lawyer argued that the applicant had been questioned during the pre-trial detention without a lawyer being present. They also submitted that the victim was not telling the truth.
12.  On 12 September 2003 the Chairman of the Telšiai District Court informed the applicant that the latter could lodge an appeal on points of law against the above ruling by 21 November 2003. The Chairman also indicated that, given that the lawyer S.K. had defended the applicant before the Šiauliai Regional Court, it was reasonable that she would assist the applicant to draft the appeal on points of law and that the judge would send that request to S.K.
13.  On 19 September 2003 S.K. wrote to the Chairman of the Telšiai District Court that she had defended the applicant before the Šiauliai District Court only on a one-time basis, because the lawyer who had been previously involved in the applicant’s defence could not come to a hearing in Šiauliai. Given that the case file was in Telšiai, S.K. was not in a position to comply with a new request and to draft an appeal on points of law. Another lawyer was necessary.
14.  In a letter of 23 September 2003, the Chairman of the Telšiai District Court requested the Šiauliai Regional Bar to assign a lawyer to assist the applicant in the preparation of his appeal on points of law. The judge noted that S.K. had objected to defending the applicant before the Supreme Court and that it had been M.M. who had represented the applicant in District Court.
15.  On 20 November 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on his own, complaining that the proceedings had been unfair. He alleged in particular that his replies during the first questioning should not have been used as evidence, since they had been taken in the absence of a lawyer. He also complained that two main witnesses had not been questioned by the courts, and that the court decisions were unsubstantiated. Finally, the applicant alleged that the courts had not examined or granted his requests for leave to acquaint himself with the case materials and for free legal aid. He wrote that he had refused a lawyer for his appeal hearing before the Supreme Court, because in respect of that appeal and when the time came to write it the applicant had not received legal aid. For the applicant, if a lawyer was present before the Supreme Court it would only be a pretence of legal aid, which had never been provided. The applicant also asked the Supreme Court to decide his case in his absence, given that his transfer to the hearing would interrupt his treatment for tuberculosis and thus impair his health.
16.  On 1 December 2003 the applicant informed the Chairman of the Telšiai District Court that he had not been provided with legal assistance to draft an appeal on points of law. The applicant referred to the court’s pronouncement that the lawyer who had represented him at the trial court [M.M.] would defend him before the Supreme Court. For the applicant, this supposition had been confirmed by the lawyer S.K.
17.  By a court document which the applicant received on 12 February 2004, he was notified that his appeal on points of law would be decided on 9 March. The document also informed the applicant that, pursuant to Article 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he had a right to be represented by a lawyer before the Supreme Court. The applicant wrote to the Supreme Court that “he did not want a lawyer to be appointed”. The document bears the applicant’s signature.
18.  On 9 March 2004 the Supreme Court determined the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The prosecutor took part in the hearing and requested that the applicant’s appeal be rejected, which was granted by the court. The applicant did not take part in the hearing, nor was he represented by a lawyer.
19.  The Supreme Court found that the lower courts had carefully examined all the relevant evidence and given adequate and sufficient reasons for their decisions. It noted that during the first questioning at the pre-trial investigation stage the applicant had himself refused the assistance of a lawyer. While it was acknowledged that two of the witnesses, J.P. and A.M., had not been questioned in court because they could not be located, their submissions were not the only indication of the applicant’s guilt. The Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the conviction. It did not address the applicant’s plea that he had not received effective legal assistance.
20.  On 30 April 2003 the Šiauliai Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder, sentencing him to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant took part in the hearings before the trial court; he was also represented by officially appointed defence counsel, R.Š. The prosecutor was also present.
21.  On 5 June 2003 the applicant wrote to the Šiauliai Regional Court that he did not want a lawyer at the appeal and that he would defend his interests himself. In a five-page letter the applicant argued that the lawyer I.S., who had represented him during the pre-trial investigation, was not diligent enough. The same was true of another lawyer, Z., appointed to defend him. For the applicant, only R.Š. had defended him properly, although still within the limits of the commitment that a State-appointed lawyer could dedicate to a client who did not pay him any money. In the words of the applicant, “if he was not able to prove his innocence by defending himself, no lawyer could do it for him”.
22.  On 9 July 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, the applicant being present. The officially appointed lawyer, J.S., was present at the hearing. However, the applicant refused to be defended by her, claiming that he did not know the lawyer’s views on his case. The judge offered a ten-minute adjournment so that the applicant could discuss his case with the lawyer. The applicant refused, stating that “ten minutes were not sufficient to explain to the lawyer his position in his case and other circumstances. Consequently, he decided to defend his interests himself and to refuse to be represented by the officially appointed lawyer, to whom he could not entrust his fate”. The applicant also stated that he was aware that the remuneration of the officially appointed lawyers was low, which was reflected in the quality of their work.
23.  On 6 and 9 October 2003 the applicant himself lodged two appeals on points of law, complaining that the courts had failed to examine all the relevant evidence and call certain witnesses, that the courts had been biased, and that their decisions had been arbitrary.
24.  On 12 December 2003 the Chairman of the Supreme Court adopted a ruling to the effect that the applicant’s appeals on points of law met the prescribed requirements and they were to be examined by that court.
25.  On 5 January 2004 the applicant was informed that his appeal on points of law would be heard by the Supreme Court on 20 January. The applicant refused the assistance of a lawyer, in writing. However, he explicitly requested to be present at the hearing.
26.  On 13 January 2004 the Supreme Court wrote to the applicant to the effect that the case file did not contain an appeal on points of law drafted by an attorney. However, an appeal on points of law drafted by the applicant was in the case file.
27.  On 20 January 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in his absence. The prosecutor was present at the hearing. Having heard the prosecutor, the Supreme Court found that all the relevant evidence had been carefully assessed by the courts, and that their decisions had been duly substantiated. No violation of the applicant’s procedural rights was detected.
28.  On 17 March 2004 and in reply to the applicant’s complaint, the Chairman of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Law Division wrote that a convicted person was to be brought to a hearing before the Supreme Court only if an appeal on points of law had been lodged with a request that a more serious charge be laid against him or a heavier penalty imposed. It was also noted that under Article 375 § 1 the Supreme Court appoints a lawyer only if the convicted person asks for one.
29.  In 1995 the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis. In 1987 he was diagnosed with hepatitis C.
30.  On 7 March 2002 the applicant was placed in the Šiauliai Remand Prison (Šiaulių tardymo izoliatorius). He complained of pain under his ribs and mentioned that in 1995 he had been ill with tuberculosis. A medical examination of the applicant showed no traces of tuberculosis. Later on the applicant was transferred to the detention facility of a police station.
31.  On 7 August 2002 the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB). He was transferred to Lukiškės Remand Prison (Lukiškių tardymo izoliatorius – kalėjimas).
32.  From 12 August 2002 until 15 October 2002, the applicant was treated in the Lukiškės prison hospital.
33.  This treatment was interrupted twice by the applicant’s transfer to Telšiai Remand Prison and Šiauliai Remand Prison.
34.  On 15 October 2002 the applicant was returned to the Lukiškės prison hospital, where he refused further medical examinations, X-ray and further treatment, on the ground that his medical treatment had been interrupted. However, a doctor dismissed the applicant’s argument as unfounded, concluding that the interruption of his treatment had been too short to make it ineffective.
35.  On 28 October 2002 the doctor diagnosed the applicant with pulmonary tuberculoma (according to the Government, focused tuberculosis, which is less dangerous than the disseminated type).
36.  On 5 February 2003 a doctor at Lukiškės Remand Prison examined the applicant. No changes in the applicant’s state of health as regards tuberculosis were detected in comparison with his condition as it was on 28 October 2002. The applicant agreed to continue his anti-tuberculosis treatment.
37.  In May 2003 hepatitis C antibodies were detected in the applicant’s blood. The records indicated that the hepatitis C was not active.
38.  On 3 July 2003 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found that the tuberculosis was not active. On the same day an echoscopy of the applicant’s liver was carried out; the results of the echoscopy appeared normal.
39.  According to the Government, when the judgment of the Šiauliai Regional Court took effect on 16 July 2003, the applicant was transferred to the Pravieniškės Healing and Correctional Prison (Pravieniškių gydymo ir pataisos namai), designated for convicted persons with tuberculosis and post-tuberculosis changes.
40.  In October 2003 the applicant was admitted to the Lukiškės prison hospital. The tests showed that he was not suffering from active hepatitis C, hence no treatment was necessary. His tuberculosis had reached the consolidation phase; anti-tuberculosis treatment was not necessary.
41.  According to the Government, in July 2005 the applicant was transferred to Pravieniškės Third Correctional House to serve the remaining part of his sentence.
42.  Following medical examinations of the applicant in May 2005 it was established that the tuberculosis had entered the resolution stage and medical treatment was not necessary.
43.  The applicant on several occasions addressed complaints to various State institutions about the conditions of detention in Telšiai Remand Prison, as well as general inadequacy of medical assistance throughout his detention.
44.  On 6 August 2002, in response to the applicant’s complaint, the Ombudsman issued a report, concluding that the conditions of detention in Telšiai Remand Prison were unsatisfactory. It was established, in particular, that the detainees lived in a cellar without natural light; there were not enough beds, and bed linen was not provided. The cells were not equipped with sanitary facilities, and there was no exercise yard.
45.  A further report by the Ombudsman of 8 September 2003 established that irregular anti-TB treatment was a frequent practice in Lithuanian prisons. In particular, the order of the Prisons Department of 21 November 2002, addressed to prison governors, stipulated that, where it was not possible to ensure supervision (direct monitoring) of anti-TB treatment, it was not required to issue anti-TB medication to infected prisoners transferred to remand prisons for less than two months.
46.  The Ombudsman noted that, in accordance with the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations, all anti-TB medication should have been provided under the supervision of medical personnel or specially trained supervisors. The irregular administration of such medication or the discontinuance of the treatment may have led to its reduced effectiveness and the emergence of more resistant forms of TB. It was concluded that the irregularity of the anti-TB treatment was in contravention of the WHO rules. The Ombudsman also indicated that the issue had not only arisen in the applicant’s case, but was a systemic problem. It was also noted, however, that the applicant himself had contributed to the aggravation of his situation by sometimes refusing treatment.
47.  On 9 December 2003 the Ombudsman wrote to the applicant that, in connection with the Ombudsman’s report of 8 September 2003, the applicant’s complaint that the medical treatment against tuberculosis he had received was inadequate could be construed as valid. Nonetheless, it was not for the Ombudsman to establish whether the interruptions of treatment due to the applicant being transferred for investigative actions and his own refusal of further treatment had had an effect on his health. The Ombudsman wrote to the applicant that the latter, if he considered that his health had suffered due to unlawful actions of the State officials, could submit a claim for damages to the administrative courts under Articles 6.271, 6.272 and 6.283 of the Civil Code (see Relevant domestic law below).
48.  On several occasions the applicant attempted to bring a court action for damages, alleging first that his detention during judicial proceedings had been unlawful, and second that the conditions of detention in Telšiai Remand Prison had been deplorable, and that his health had been damaged due to the inadequacy of anti-TB treatment and general medical assistance.
49.  On 3 April 2003 the applicant submitted a civil claim for damages to the Telšiai District Court, for his allegedly unlawful pre-trial detention. The court did not accept the action for examination, given that the document did not meet the prescribed procedural requirements.
50.  On 26 June 2003 the Chairman of the Telšiai District Court granted the applicant’s request for legal aid for the preparation of a court action. The court took account of the fact that the applicant was a prisoner and noted that preparation of a legal action was generally a complex undertaking. The lawyer M.M. was designated to provide the applicant with legal help. The court also noted that M.M. was to be paid according to the rules prescribed by the applicable legislation.
51.  On 1 December 2003 the applicant wrote to the Chairman of the Telšiai District Court that months had passed since the decision to provide him with free legal aid had been taken, but that no actual legal assistance had been provided.
52.  On 3 December 2003 the Telšiai District Court again invited advocate M.M. to give legal assistance to the applicant.
53.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Lithuanian Bar Association, alleging that he had received no legal assistance for the preparation of his complaint.
54.  An extract from the Pravieniškės Healing and Correctional Home’s Journal on Prisoner’s Admission on Personal Matters indicates that on 18 February 2004 the applicant consulted the prison lawyer regarding where to obtain free legal aid. The record indicates that it was explained to the applicant to whom and with which documents he should apply for such aid.
55.  On 27 February 2004 the lawyer M.M. informed the Bar Association that he had been obliged by the Telšiai District Court to provide legal assistance to the applicant. However, given that M.M. had earlier defended the applicant in a criminal trial for robbery and was well aware of all the circumstances under which pre-trial detention had been imposed on the applicant, M.M. deemed the claim for damages for alleged unlawful detention to be without prospects. Consequently, M.M. suggested that the applicant not lodge a civil claim or, in the alternative, ask that another lawyer be appointed to represent him. M.M. also wrote that his actions would contradict the guidelines of Article 17 §§ 7 and 8 of the Lawyers’ Code of Professional Ethics (see paragraph 61 below).
56.  On 6 and 12 of June 2003 the applicant requested the Vilnius City Second District Court to open civil proceedings for damages against the State of Lithuania. He alleged, inter alia, that the conditions of his detention at the Telšiai Remand Prison had been deplorable, and that his health had been damaged due to the inadequacy of the anti-TB and general medical assistance.
57.  The Vilnius City Second District Court refused to accept the applicant’s action for examination as not meeting the prescribed requirements.
58.  The applicant requested the court to grant him free legal aid on the basis of Article 14 of the Law on State Guaranteed Legal Aid.
59.  On 3 July 2003 the Vilnius City Second District Court informed the applicant in writing that the latter had failed to prove his eligibility for free legal aid. Certain procedures and rules were to be followed when asking for such help. The court enclosed a copy of the Law on State Guaranteed Legal Aid and a standard application form for legal aid.